People v. Phillips CA2/4

Filed 4/19/21 P. v. Phillips CA2/4 Opinion after vacating opinion filed on 4/6/21 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B304857

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA455160) v.

EDWIN PHILLIPS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, Sergio C. Tapia, II, Judge. Affirmed. Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Toni R. Johns Estaville and Nikhil Cooper, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In a prior appeal, defendant Edwin Phillips appealed from his conviction of one count of indecent exposure with a prior. (Pen. Code,1 § 314, subd. (1).) We conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to conduct a mental health diversion eligibility hearing under section 1001.36. We directed that if the court found that the statutory criteria were met, it could grant diversion and, if defendant successfully completed diversion, the court must dismiss the charges; but if the court found the statutory criteria were not met, or if defendant did not complete diversion, the judgment must be reinstated. On remand, the trial court held the hearing as directed, but at the hearing defendant in effect withdrew his consent to diversion and did not present any evidence. The trial court found the statutory criteria were not met and declined to grant diversion. Defendant now appeals from that ruling, arguing that the trial court’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that by withdrawing his consent to diversion, defendant forfeited any challenge to the trial court’s ruling declining to grant diversion. Accordingly, we affirm the order.